Signal-Copiahan. (Hazlehurst, Copiah County, Miss.) 1885-1888, 1887-02-24

| very mucn the lOrn IN Wnlcn we arc nc
customcd TO it. Ii was introduced into
Normandy itself from Scandinavia,
under Rolla. and there is mention Of q
jury trial before twelve mcn-thc first
so constituted of which there is record
in the time of William. Suit had been
brought about piece of land To which
Gundulph. Bishop of Rochester, was u
party. The King not caring to give
decision himself. referred the matter tn
the country TO be determined there in
accordance with the Saxon usage in
such cases. This course was taken,
but the result was not satisfactory TO
Odo. Bishop of Baycuy. who had pre-
sided at the hearing. and he ordered
that the case should be rchcarl. in nc.
cordancc with the Norman custom. he
fore twelve men, who should give their
opinion OF tho matter upon their oaths.
II seems that originally the jury did
not trouble themselves To take evi-
dcncc in court. Summoned from the
very neighborhood in which the trans
action at issue had occurred, they were
supposed To be- familiar with its details;
and they therefore ~ true verdict"
gave. not rs now. in accordance with
evidence formally drawn up, but in ac-
cOrlancc with their own knowledge
and observation. IL was enough in
civil eases that the verdict should be-
upon their belief. Nor was il ncccs-
Sary that they should all agree. IMAM
unity does not seem 10 have been in-
sisted upon before the end of the Thir-
tccnth century; and even when il was
regarded aS an absolute necessity nm
easy way was taken of getting at the
desired results. What was done was
To keep adding fresh members To the
original jury, until twelve were rot tc
agree. And even later, when the
course was adopted of starving jury
into unanimity. it was within the juris.
diction of the court 10 accept ma
ioritv verdict after the jury had had
what was considered ample time e.
make up their minds. II was not until
the reign of Edward III. that it was set.
tied in the Kings Bench that the yer.
diet must be- unanimous; and this de-
cision has ever since been binding in
the English courts. Early In the reign.
however. n case occurred in which u
Juror in an action Of trcsspass would
not agree with his fellows. and he was
summarily dealt with. The judge very
cOolly committed him To gaol, and took
the verdic; Of the eleven. This
was not so great an outrage rs that
which occurred aS late rs 1853 when
on the trial ot Sir Nicholas Throckmor-
ton for high treason, the jury, who
found the defendant not guilty, were
were heavily lincd therefor and mpriS.
urcG r'r several m1utnS. IN Sc. .!and
the verdict Of u majority still sulliccS,
but there fifteen men are sworn ont of
a list of forty-fivc. There. also, three
vcrlictS may be rcturncd-"No,
guilty." Guilty" and Not proven" "
In England "Not Proven" is regarded
rs verdict of acquittal, and this is
the practical effect in Scotland. though
in many eases il is liable To the Irish
Interpretation: 1--WE find the prisoner
not guilty. but he mustn'tdo II again"
The theory in all criminal cases j.
that a man stands his trial before hi
peers. 1t is no longer. however.
considered necessary that the
jury should be- made up of per.
sons drawn from the same station of
life as the accused. 1t is enough that
they are reputable and unprcjudiccd
men drawn from the county or dis.
trict in which the trial is held. But il
may happen that prisoner sees reason
10 find fault with the constitution of the
jury. In that ease he has the right Of
challenger. and the men whom he oh.
icctS To will bc removed and others put
in their places. The prosecutor, on th,
other hand. has right of challenge also
1t is right. however, on both sides,
with is limitations, otherwise il might
be- exercised indefinitely, and to the
complete exhaustion of the list of avail.
able juror. Leeds Mercury.